Another gun thread...

[Tiberius]

Couldn't disagree more. That amendment was written in a time when bullets took minutes to fire not seconds. It really isn't the same.

It's outdated.

The first amendment was written at a time when speaking freely and openly to someone across the country took weeks, not seconds. It really isn't the same.

It's outdated.

So let me get this straight.

You think that the 2nd amendment enables citizens to fight an authority with the power and wealth the size of the US army. Riiight. Keep telling yourself that.

That is exactly what it says. The 2nd amendment says this:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, because the security of a free state requires the presence of a militia (i.e. the US Army), it is also necessary for the people of that state to keep and bear arms, in case a time arises when the people need to fight back against the government.

You make the big mistake of assuming that in a civil war with the people against the government, the government would have complete control over the army they have now. That wouldn't be the case, for the simple reason that some of those soldiers would defect to the side of the people. This is exactly how it went down in the American Revolution. All soldiers in America were British and part of the British Army at that time, but many defected and became the Continental Army.

It's massively different because the times are different. Again, when the laws were made about gun ownership, no one at that point envisioned automatic assault rifles that could deal the kind of damage they do today. How can you say it is the same? Aside from the guns themselves, what about the US military. Again the notion that the general public could take on this sort of government, it's ludicrous and outdated.

If you're talking about governments in general, then that quote wasn't even relevant to this thread was it?

I never said it was the same, but the point is, it doesn't matter that there are now automatic assault rifles. The founding fathers never envisioned something like the Internet either, but that doesn't mean laws regarding freedom of speech or a right to privacy should change.

What matters is, the 2nd amendment is there so that revolution can happen if it is needed. A revolution is more easily fought if the side of the people is roughly evenly matched with that of the government. The government have access to assault weapons; so should the people. Before the point about WMDs is brought up, I should point out that even in the event of a civil war, it is unlikely that he government would nuke its own country, so I don't see why they would be needed by anyone.

See above for my comments about why your assertion that the general public couldn't take on the US government is in my opinion, relying on bad assumptions.

Did I say that? What does it matter? I've not been talking about enslaving anyone.

You made a comment about this quote not being relevant:

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."

The idea that the general public can 'fight against' an oppressive government (in America and in this day and age) is an absurd notion when it comes to guns. If Americans were to fight a battle against an oppressive government all guns would do would amplify the amount of people dead. There's other ways to fight against oppressive governments than going all redneck and blowing each other to pieces.

See above points.

Having a gun makes it no easier to stop a criminal in the act, I'd like to see the stats that prove this.

I'd have thought common sense would have done. If a criminal breaks into your house and you don't have a gun, you'll have to engage them in close combat (or more likely flee if they are well armed). If you do have a gun, and they don't, you clearly have the upper hand and can force them to leave. If they have a gun, then I still hold that you are better off with one, in case the criminal is crazy enough to try and use it. Burglaries where a criminal has shot the victim (either on purpose or by accident) do happen. Even worse than that, home invasions do happen, where people are held at gunpoint or beaten up. If someone came into my home for that purpose, I know I'd like to have some kind of weapon I can use at both long and short range.

I think Rhythm answered this, but a gun in no way makes your chances of survival higher. I really think you're deluding yourself if you think that it is. You're equally as likely to miss and take a bullet to the brain yourself as you are to shoot anyone.

I disagree with Rhythm's assessment and your own. I'd like to see where you got the "equally likely to miss" statistic. If you are trained in handling a firearm, your shot could be pretty accurate. I'm assuming here that any household with a gun knows how to use it, and has training in order to make them a better shot.

Sure, there is a risk of taking a bullet yourself, but that risk is there with or without your gun. A criminal with a gun is what you are facing.

There was a case in the UK recently where a farming couple used a shotgun against burglars who had invaded their home. They stopped the crime in the act. I'm not sure what the burglars were armed with, but it was likely knives. Without a gun, who knows, perhaps the couple would have been stabbed?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lei...e-19496531